 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Lord Maximus Farquaad wrote: | | David wrote: | By the way, here's an article about another "genetic freak" (the article's wording, not mine) whose unusual physical characteristics also seem to make him impossible to defeat, yet whom nobody seems to have a problem with. You might call him the Caster Semenya of men's sprinting:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34089451
| Quote: | even among top sprinters, Bolt stands out, and this is partly because of his height.
"Bolt is a genetic freak because being 6ft 5ins tall means he shouldn't be able to accelerate at the speed he does given the length of his legs," says former Great Britain sprinter Craig Pickering.
"At the beginning of a race you want to take short steps in order to accelerate, but because he's so tall he can't do that. But then when he reaches top speed he has a massive advantage over everyone else because he's taking far fewer steps." |
When it comes to athletes, biological advantages extend way beyond chromosomes, hormones and sex difference. You're never going to get an even playing field in which only the most dedicated and hardest-training runner wins, and we need to get rid of any notion that these elite competitions are purely about effort being rewarded. Accepting that may not change your mind on whether transgender or intersex people should be able to participate in women's sport, but it should at least allow us to get rid of some of the background noise about deserving and undeserving winners. |
Everyone that has ever played sport at any level at all, or watched any sport, knows that effort being rewarded is just one factor that determines who wins. I think that covers everyone. Ever hear of Ablett Snr? And in women's sport, Liz Cambage. They are two examples of reaching the top without putting in the effort that others do. |
yep and no matter who they play for you have to admire the sheer athleticism of them, i used to love watching gary senior play.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | yeah nah, ill stick with woman, dad, mum, or even mom, and Stui, i totally disagree, a generation of women, WOMEN, not PEOPLE, just WOMEN, who have had to fight long enough for equality. ! |
I am on the same side on this argument, particularly when someone has trained as an athlete with the advantages male physiology provides and then transitions to females and wants to compete.
The problem as I see it is that just pushing back against an ever increasing tide won't work. The only way to prove the point is to allow competition and see what happens.
I don't buy into either the arguments about the people who were born intersex, and David's argument about Bolt is a red-herring. Firstly he still had to train to realise his potential and second comparing a slow and fast male to physiological male and females just doesn't equate.
The argument comes down to rights vs fairness and in the current day, rights win. |
ah well i get where your coming from same as the bloody Me Too movement, I think Me too is doing a huge injustice to any man accused of any kind of sexual assault, they have no chance, when it comes to sport im so $Ł$%^%%$ jaded, from Wayne Harmes, to drug cheats to shitty umpire decisions "in the name of advancing the game" and as someone who loves sport, has competed in many forms of it, watched my sister at the olympics, i just cant accept rights over fair.
and David noone here said gold medals are an entitlement, but neither is competing in the olympics. She should have competed when she was he, now its too late, so how many female world records need to be shredded before enough is enough?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
You're talking about the difference between ideology and physiology/biology, between gender and sex.
Sports base their rules on sex, not gender.
Yes some people have genetic or skill based advantages over others. How many white men have won the Olympic 100m sprint in the past 30 years?
That's not the same as having biological men competing against biological women. |
this, you can chop bits off but you cant really change your anatomy.
i mean who cares? girls will lose interest in sport, whats the point if you have no chance? so what as long as the minority get what they want. lets just forget about the rights of half the population and give their rights to a minority, because thats exactly what it is. whats next, they identify as women even if they havent transitioned so they can play?
they only fair solution is a separate division, and if there is only 1 competitor for a while thats fine.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
Lord Maximus Farquaad 
Joined: 06 Jun 2021
Location: Duloc
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | yeah nah, ill stick with woman, dad, mum, or even mom, and Stui, i totally disagree, a generation of women, WOMEN, not PEOPLE, just WOMEN, who have had to fight long enough for equality. ! |
I am on the same side on this argument, particularly when someone has trained as an athlete with the advantages male physiology provides and then transitions to females and wants to compete.
The problem as I see it is that just pushing back against an ever increasing tide won't work. The only way to prove the point is to allow competition and see what happens.
I don't buy into either the arguments about the people who were born intersex, and David's argument about Bolt is a red-herring. Firstly he still had to train to realise his potential and second comparing a slow and fast male to physiological male and females just doesn't equate.
The argument comes down to rights vs fairness and in the current day, rights win. |
ah well i get where your coming from same as the bloody Me Too movement, I think Me too is doing a huge injustice to any man accused of any kind of sexual assault, they have no chance, when it comes to sport im so $ďż˝$%^%%$ jaded, from Wayne Harmes, to drug cheats to shitty umpire decisions "in the name of advancing the game" and as someone who loves sport, has competed in many forms of it, watched my sister at the olympics, i just cant accept rights over fair.
and David noone here said gold medals are an entitlement, but neither is competing in the olympics. She should have competed when she was he, now its too late, so how many female world records need to be shredded before enough is enough? |
If you are talking about the weightlifter, Gavin Hubbard was the former NZ mens junior record holder in the 105kg plus category. Now competing as a woman named Laurel Hubbard, we will see what happens. The Pacific islander women are normally very good at weightlifting, but Laurel Hubbard seems to have them covered.
I mentioned the name Gavin in my previous post but it was deleted from that post. I don't know why.
_________________
I’ve tried to be fair to you creatures, but now my patience has reached its end. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | yeah nah, ill stick with woman, dad, mum, or even mom, and Stui, i totally disagree, a generation of women, WOMEN, not PEOPLE, just WOMEN, who have had to fight long enough for equality. ! |
I am on the same side on this argument, particularly when someone has trained as an athlete with the advantages male physiology provides and then transitions to females and wants to compete.
The problem as I see it is that just pushing back against an ever increasing tide won't work. The only way to prove the point is to allow competition and see what happens.
I don't buy into either the arguments about the people who were born intersex, and David's argument about Bolt is a red-herring. Firstly he still had to train to realise his potential and second comparing a slow and fast male to physiological male and females just doesn't equate.
The argument comes down to rights vs fairness and in the current day, rights win. |
Actually, it’s not a red herring at all – as the BBC article I posted mentions, Bolt routinely finishes several seconds ahead of his nearest opponent, whereas the second and third placegetters at the 800m event LMF referred to – intersex women with some male characteristics and higher levels of testosterone – only finished a fraction of a second ahead of the fourth "regular female" placegetter (if you watch the race, it’s very tight between third and fourth). It’s reasonable to suppose that Bolt’s biological advantages over his cohort are actually greater than those of, say, Semenya over her cis female competitors. Bolt really does seem to be in a class of his own.
So it’s not really accurate to say this is about rights vs fairness: when you’re dealing with biological advantages, the question over what constitutes a fair playing field becomes a murky one – and whether you can or can’t compete is just as much a matter of fairness as whether you think your opponent has an unfair advantage.
Sex vs gender seems a neat distinction, but it’s not nearly so simple: the question of whether eligibility for women’s sport is a question of sex or gender was never considered back in the day because it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone that those categories might be in conflict. So to say now that it’s actually about chromosomes is a bit revisionist; some will argue it’s a necessary new distinction, but it doesn’t really go very far to help us with edge cases like Semenya’s.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't think a person who has been through puberty as a male and developed their physical strength that way should be allowed to participate in women's sport at all. It's a form of relative performance-enhancement, just like taking steroids. I think it is quite reasonable to say that you can be whatever "gender" you like without that automatically entitling you to do a particular thing.
There have always been such anomalies in sport. One more won't matter. I watch a fair bit of international soccer. We just accepted that, by accident of birth, the great Jari Litmanen was condemned to play for Finland (which is always a terrible team), even though he must, no doubt, have occasionally wished that he could have turned out for the Netherlands (he was the best attacking midfielder in the World at one time and played much of his career - and the most famous parts of it - with Ajax).
Or poor Lionel Messi, who has only ever played senior football at one club, in Spain - but is condemned to captain Argentina. "Country of origin" is an entirely contingent human construct. Just the result of drawing some arbitrary boundaries. There is no sensible reason capable of being advanced to gainsay application of some similarly arbitrary principle to exclude some people who self-identify as "women" (or, perhaps, to be more precise "not men") from the category of people who can participate in "women's" sports.
Obviously, biological advantages determine the outcomes of much sport at the highest level. It wouldn't be very sensible for the NRL, eg, to introduce a rule to handicap Ryan Papenhuyzen just because he is faster than all the other men or to make big Nelson tackle one-handed because he is 6'7" and 300 pounds. They could do it - but no-one would watch it. So much can be accepted without also accepting that someone who has mislaid their penis should be able to participate in "women's" sport. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | yeah nah, ill stick with woman, dad, mum, or even mom, and Stui, i totally disagree, a generation of women, WOMEN, not PEOPLE, just WOMEN, who have had to fight long enough for equality. ! |
I am on the same side on this argument, particularly when someone has trained as an athlete with the advantages male physiology provides and then transitions to females and wants to compete.
The problem as I see it is that just pushing back against an ever increasing tide won't work. The only way to prove the point is to allow competition and see what happens.
I don't buy into either the arguments about the people who were born intersex, and David's argument about Bolt is a red-herring. Firstly he still had to train to realise his potential and second comparing a slow and fast male to physiological male and females just doesn't equate.
The argument comes down to rights vs fairness and in the current day, rights win. |
Actually, it’s not a red herring at all – as the BBC article I posted mentions, Bolt routinely finishes several seconds ahead of his nearest opponent, whereas the second and third placegetters at the 800m event LMF referred to – intersex women with some male characteristics and higher levels of testosterone – only finished a fraction of a second ahead of the fourth "regular female" placegetter (if you watch the race, it’s very tight between third and fourth). It’s reasonable to suppose that Bolt’s biological advantages over his cohort are actually greater than those of, say, Semenya over her cis female competitors. Bolt really does seem to be in a class of his own.
So it’s not really accurate to say this is about rights vs fairness: when you’re dealing with biological advantages, the question over what constitutes a fair playing field becomes a murky one – and whether you can or can’t compete is just as much a matter of fairness as whether you think your opponent has an unfair advantage.
Sex vs gender seems a neat distinction, but it’s not nearly so simple: the question of whether eligibility for women’s sport is a question of sex or gender was never considered back in the day because it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone that those categories might be in conflict. So to say now that it’s actually about chromosomes is a bit revisionist; some will argue it’s a necessary new distinction, but it doesn’t really go very far to help us with edge cases like Semenya’s. |
but were they any good as runners when they were "regular men"? maybe they just shouldnt be athletes? big fish little pond.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | I don't think a person who has been through puberty as a male and developed their physical strength that way should be allowed to participate in women's sport at all. It's a form of relative performance-enhancement, just like taking steroids. I think it is quite reasonable to say that you can be whatever "gender" you like without that automatically entitling you to do a particular thing.
There have always been such anomalies in sport. One more won't matter. I watch a fair bit of international soccer. We just accepted that, by accident of birth, the great Jari Litmanen was condemned to play for Finland (which is always a terrible team), even though he must, no doubt, have occasionally wished that he could have turned out for the Netherlands (he was the best attacking midfielder in the World at one time and played much of his career - and the most famous parts of it - with Ajax).
Or poor Lionel Messi, who has only ever played senior football at one club, in Spain - but is condemned to captain Argentina. "Country of origin" is an entirely contingent human construct. Just the result of drawing some arbitrary boundaries. There is no sensible reason capable of being advanced to gainsay application of some similarly arbitrary principle to exclude some people who self-identify as "women" (or, perhaps, to be more precise "not men") from the category of people who can participate in "women's" sports.
Obviously, biological advantages determine the outcomes of much sport at the highest level. It wouldn't be very sensible for the NRL, eg, to introduce a rule to handicap Ryan Papenhuyzen just because he is faster than all the other men or to make big Nelson tackle one-handed because he is 6'7" and 300 pounds. They could do it - but no-one would watch it. So much can be accepted without also accepting that someone who has mislaid their penis should be able to participate in "women's" sport. |
this says it all, in my opinion. exactly 200% right!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | but were they any good as runners when they were "regular men"? maybe they just shouldnt be athletes? big fish little pond. |
But they weren't ever regular men – all three of these athletes were born as women. We've discussed Semenya's case on here before, I think, and I recall you being supportive of her in this same thread. As for whether they're any good as runners, I dare say you'd have to be to an exceptionally good one to run 800 metres in under 2 minutes, male, female or otherwise.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
and here i thought this thread was about transgenders! of course there are exceptions to the rule, and you have pointed out that she is an "edge case" your words not mine. I have no idea what testing has been done on this individual to make the determinations, but it certainly has nothing to do with transgenders who in the past there was no doubt about what gender they were born. So lets get back to the actual subject.
as for Bolt he is a once in a life time freak of nature that we should all marvel at, and lets hope he has passed his speed onto the kids, so they can catch the playground bullies, because geezusfook those names are bad!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, I wasn't the one who brought them up, but in any case the last sentence of my post would still apply even if they were transgender. And I think it's easy to say "maybe they just shouldn't be athletes" when it's not your life or dream on the line – again, there's this implication that trans athletes are just out for ill-gotten gain or trying to make a point, as opposed to wishing to excel at the thing they're good at, like anyone else would want to.
Compare this prospect with the girls and women so many are expressing sympathy for in this thread, none of whom are at any risk of being barred from achieving their dream of becoming elite athletes: they're simply faced with the prospect that someone else out on the field might be stronger or faster than they are. Not every AFL player is built like Dustin Martin or Nic Naitanui, and I personally don't consider those who aren't to have copped a raw deal. Likewise, short girls still play netball, and have presumably come to terms with the possibility of one day having the bad luck to play on a 6-foot tall opponent (e.g. https://tamilculture.com/tharjini-sivalingam-the-40-year-old-tallest-netballer-in-the-world-who-almost-never-misses). I just don't think anyone would see this as an issue if it wasn't for the perception that transgender women are interlopers; they would just be seen as being within the vast human spectrum of size, strength and physical capabilities.
| Pies4shaw wrote: | I don't think a person who has been through puberty as a male and developed their physical strength that way should be allowed to participate in women's sport at all. It's a form of relative performance-enhancement, just like taking steroids. I think it is quite reasonable to say that you can be whatever "gender" you like without that automatically entitling you to do a particular thing.
There have always been such anomalies in sport. One more won't matter. I watch a fair bit of international soccer. We just accepted that, by accident of birth, the great Jari Litmanen was condemned to play for Finland (which is always a terrible team), even though he must, no doubt, have occasionally wished that he could have turned out for the Netherlands (he was the best attacking midfielder in the World at one time and played much of his career - and the most famous parts of it - with Ajax).
Or poor Lionel Messi, who has only ever played senior football at one club, in Spain - but is condemned to captain Argentina. "Country of origin" is an entirely contingent human construct. Just the result of drawing some arbitrary boundaries. There is no sensible reason capable of being advanced to gainsay application of some similarly arbitrary principle to exclude some people who self-identify as "women" (or, perhaps, to be more precise "not men") from the category of people who can participate in "women's" sports.
Obviously, biological advantages determine the outcomes of much sport at the highest level. It wouldn't be very sensible for the NRL, eg, to introduce a rule to handicap Ryan Papenhuyzen just because he is faster than all the other men or to make big Nelson tackle one-handed because he is 6'7" and 300 pounds. They could do it - but no-one would watch it. So much can be accepted without also accepting that someone who has mislaid their penis should be able to participate in "women's" sport. |
I don't disagree at all that we accept arbitrary injustices in sport all the time, and that it's fairly normal and expected that that be so. And entitlement, to me, is the wrong framework; as I replied to Stui in a previous post, this isn't solely about rights.
Instead, when it comes to a policy of exclusion (particularly one that would reflect and enhance broader disadvantages), the question for me would always be: why? What justifies it? I don't accept that it's an instance of performance enhancement or in any way comparable with taking steroids because no actual process of enhancement is occurring, chosen or otherwise. It would make much more sense to me to consider transgender women a class of women blessed with biological advantages, little different to various ethnic groups that tend to excel at certain sports.
The only justifiable reason for exclusion, to my mind, would be if transgender women were so dominant in a given sporting code that it made any prospect of meaningful competition impossible – i.e. the prospect of them not only winning, but consistently wiping the floor with opponents (and my impression is that nothing of the sort has transpired when transgender women have been allowed to compete). Then I think it would make sense to bar certain competitors from entry, only allow competitors under certain conditions (such as hormone level requirements) or start thinking about dividing sports up into weight divisions, as exist in boxing and weightlifting. In no sense, though, would it justify a policy of wholesale exclusion.
(I think it's also important to recognise that gender transition is about far more than just a change in genitalia; the first step in medical transition without exception is hormone treatment, which directly results in – in the case of transgender women – a lowering of testosterone levels. While other biological advantages may remain, I think it's fair to say that such treatments have a handicapping effect right out of the gate.)
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Semenya etc are in my opinion in a completely different category. They aren't transgender, they're intersex or borderline, a physiological/biological condition they were born with.
A Trans woman is different. They may well have identified from a young age as a different gender to their biology. Feeling that way isn't a choice, choosing to identify that way and undertake the reassignment process is a choice, one they are absolutely entitled to make.
Choosing to want to compete in sport at the highest level against biological CIS women is a choice, but not one they are entitled to make, particularly if they trained and competed in the same endeavour as a male.
I don't agree with a blanket rule as proposed by P4S that anyone who transitions from male to female post puberty is banned from competing against CIS females. With all due respect David, you could pull on a dress tomorrow without surgery or hormones and I doubt any top level female athletes would be having sleepless nights.  Individual cases should ideally be looked at and assessed on merit.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
Instead, when it comes to a policy of exclusion (particularly one that would reflect and enhance broader disadvantages), the question for me would always be: why? What justifies it? |
So I'm a male of African ancestry, therefore more likely to be disadvantaged. I'm not fast enough to make the 100m for my country, let alone win an Olympic final. I decide to identify as female. No surgery or hormone treatment, purely gender identification. Then I want to try out and compete in the same event but as a female. What justifies my exclusion?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
david said | Quote: | "Compare this prospect with the girls and women so many are expressing sympathy for in this thread, none of whom are at any risk of being barred from achieving their dream of becoming elite athletes:
they're simply faced with the prospect that someone else out on the field might be stronger or faster than they are.
Not every AFL player is built like Dustin Martin or Nic Naitanui, and I personally don't consider those who aren't to have copped a raw deal. Likewise, short girls still play netball, and have presumably come to terms with the possibility of one day having the bad luck to play on a 6-foot tall opponent (e.g. https://tamilculture.com/tharjini-sivalingam-the-40-year-old-tallest-netballer-in-the-world-who-almost-never-misses). I just don't think anyone would see this as an issue if it wasn't for the perception that transgender women are interlopers; they would just be seen as being within the vast human spectrum of size, strength and physical capabilities." |
that middle bit, no its not 'someone" its an exmale, women should only have to compete against other woman, and call me any name under the sun, i dont give 2fux, ill call her she, her, whatever you want but they will always have being a male in their history and that should exempt them from the competition. Fair? fair to transgender and stuff the women hey? no, absolutely not.
what happens when the records get smashed- by an exmale who is 43, wow lts lauder the 43 year old sport star! she transitioned at 35!!! thats 35 years of testosterone. this is an absolute farce. and i honestly hope the other competitors make a stand. and no, i dont give a shit about her feelings, because she is going to achieve something she doesnt deserve, its cheating.
and that netballer?? there is ways around them, just as with cox, smart players find a way!
maybe she could go on ninja warrior, thats all in, and youll notice very few women any where near the top, Olivia is the best easily, and shes barely top 10. when i barrel raced my pony we competed against men, there are sports that combine the sexes, weightlifting should be an absolute no no. its a fricken joke!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
